Today, Mike Magee posted an article by Andrew Busigin regarding Intel's Northwood Celeron. It has a lot of historical information relating to Intel's Celeron line and why they brought it forth unto the world. In short, Intel has from now until the end of this year to put AMD in their place, because if AMD is able to deliver on Hammer, and if its performance is anywhere near the levels we're expecting, then Intel will be behind the performance curve for quite a while. AMD will be offering the world a viable x86-32 to x86-64 upgrade path, something the entire x86-32/IA-32 base will welcome. Intel, on the other hand, will still be forcing everyone to choose among Pentium 4, Xeon, and Itanium, with the significant differences in cost, performance, and hardware/software each demands. Intel's current plan, therefore, is to attack AMD now (during this few-month window), with the end goal being an attempt to reclassify AMD as a company with products that barely compete with Intel's low-end. They'll do this by upping Celeron's performance (the chip Intel has routinely touted as being at the low-end of the market) to show how admirably even their lowly Celeron competes against AMD's flagship, Athlon XP. Make no mistake about it: Intel recognizes the threat AMD poses. To defend themselves, they'll engage in numerous plans to keep AMD at bay. I'm sure this is just one of the many we'll see in months to come. Read Andrew's full article at The Inquirer.

Currently AMD still observes their 'normal' price advantage, but what if that disapeared?

Are AMD fans the fans of AMD or fans of a cheap, well made processor.

What if their choice was P42.26 w/512K and 533MHz bus versus a 2200+, and the P4 was CHEAPER?

I know there will be fanboys that will still go with AMD…but that would be a hard choice to make.

How much margin does Intel have on their chips? Are they willing to sustain some losses in order to beat AMD at their own game?

(Intel had revenues in the billions dind't they? AMDs are 600 million?) I think Intel has a cusion to play with that could send AMD into more of a niche market.

Also, I have yet to 'get' the real point of the 32/64 chip. I mean, I understand what this does, and it will ease the conversion to 64bit…

But many people JUST recently upgraded to windows XP or got out of their Windows 95 funk…I don't think these people are going to want to have to maintain two sets of software for this '64 optimized' chip. - by Manu

Whats wrong with forcing to choose(1:40pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)The problem in computers is that too often, backwards compatibility creeps into the list of features that new products must pocess, so rather then creating a product that truely exceeds expectations, a company ensures backwards compatibility and generally reduces the quality/stability/feature set of the new product. An awesome product can become hum-drum quite quickly.

With the upgrade path to 32bit to 64bit, I don't see a reason for it to be piecemeal. It is not like there are a slew of killer 64bit apps out there that home and business users are dying to get their hands on. Mostly, all that will be available for workstations computers is a 64bit OS, period. I don't even see real reasons for common workhorse applications like CAD or graphics applications to make an immediate switch to 64bit processing.

I think people are over-rating the importance of a 32/64bit hybrid, and giving Intel too much grief for providing a one shot upgrade path. When customers decide to go 64bit, it is because they have deemed it necessary for their business, and will make the switch, not because the want to dabble with Windows XP 64bit, or run 64bit linux just for sh*ts and giggles.

I like AMD, and have recently bought into their products, but I will not rush out to buy a CPU where 50% of its functionality I will not use. I would rather a CPU which has been streamlined to run 32bit well and then if I consider 64bit a necessary upgrade, get a CPU which runs 64bit well.

I think it will eventually harm the industry to go through a period where 32 bit is not quite dead, and 64 bit has not quite taken over.

- by Topher

Intel more than scared(2:44pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)something like pee in the wardrobe - by Groovy

intc is driving their stock down and fast(3:15pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)thats the currency of a company and soon most of the investors will see that. They had a choice to make good products but can't work with a real competitor out their . While they are trying to kill off AMD they are ruining their own company.They will never ever be what they once were. - by TpDAve

Why 2 sets of software Manu(4:19pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)I buy software today that ships and supports Macs and Windows from the same box. Additionally, the products that only support 64bit functionality will need to do so because of the nature of the application. I don't see MS Excel having yet another version to support 64 bits, but it will recognize hardware and software functionality that it can take advantage of… like direct x and SSE2 , etc.- by my 2 cents

manu…(4:20pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)thats a no brainer… if it was 200$ for a 2.26ghz p4 (512k 533bus) or a 2200+… um P4… performance for cost is what the game is about… if intel could give me the same or more in your exaple bang for the buck id go with the more for less.

TpDAve is kinda right i dont think intel will quite be the Co. they used to be, the last few years had to dent the ego a little bit… they know that they are not invincible now.

topher – the 64-bit extentions are not 50% of the functionality… they don't take up much room at all… the main benifits will be for 32 bit computing and the on board ddr controller will allow fast memory accesses… - by next362″

Is AMD trailing or leading Intel?(4:28pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)Most the reads on Geek.com recently seem to indicate that AMD is in the fight for its life and that hammer on paper doesn't look as good as the hammer marketing lore, however, this article sounds like AMD has intel scared and is driving Intel to protect its market share. Can't be both ways? - by the leader is ???

the leader is ???(4:51pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)Hammer on paper when first announced was very beautiful, now as time goes on its looking less and less with every news blurb on it.

Hammer white paper was out forever ago and still no beef, that why the question are poping up it because its looking more like Itanic the white paper.

Why is it so late? Well honestly I dont think anyone except for the people working on the hammer project of the people who tell them what to do know the exact reason its so late.

Lots of rumors and theroys(some could be right but most are based common isses with bringing a new chip to maker such as validation) but nothing more til AMD says something about what is or did go on. - by Nataku

Maybe AMD is hiding info about Hammer, like Intel is hiding Prescott's(6:22pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)- by Who Knows

Nataku(10:45pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)You better shut up sometimes. You don't even know what are you talking about. - by Nataku-buster

Nataku-buster(11:34pm EST Fri Jul 12 2002)what did I say that so offensive this time?

Askheart or U.S. Marine didnt say I was off base and they are the first to call stuff like that if there is even a slight chance.- by Nataku

Pull an AMD ?(12:45am EST Sat Jul 13 2002)Does anyone remember the term pulling an amd? It was when a manufacturer hyped something then ir fell far short of expectations……This term was put out of use with the Athlon. Doea anyone Remember the K6-2? or hell K6-3? most of you wont remeber k6-3 because not a single desktop ever made it to a computer store with it. I know I was working at one feverishly waiting to put my hands on one ( I was an AMD mark at the time ) Whe nit didnt show up I started investigating and found that basically the chip cost twice as much to an OEM (about $80) than a K6-2 and the performance Difference was nill except for office apps. Hammer is a new field in a way with the 64 bit application of it but usinga older core. My fear is this is a K6-2 to K6-3 where it will be more expensive and provide a nominal performance boost. I hope to god I am wrong - by The-Hurricane

what are you talking about, Nataku?(4:20am EST Sat Jul 13 2002)

what??? every release of the hammer i see, it looks better and better. unless better for you is better for intel ('cause the preliminary performanced of a crippled hammer was impressive)

and hurricane, what about “pulling an intel”…the k6-3 fiasco was 4 years ago.

the 820 chipset, p3 1.13 recal, p4 willimette (umm, it sucked), and rambus disaster have all occured in the last 3 years

and lets not forget the itanium 1… - by zsubnot

Thats all well and good (1:00pm EST Sat Jul 13 2002)but we were talking about amd theyrenwas never a term pulling an intel. I was speaking about hammer not prescott I hope for the chip industry as a whole that both of these chips pull the weight that the manufacturers claim they will but they both have track records of not doing so. - by The-Hurricane

Don't underestimate AMD(7:32pm EST Sat Jul 13 2002)I think some of u guys misunderstood what X86-64 is for. Think about it from price point of view. Today we pay AMD MP 2000 for 208 on pricewatch. When clawhammer 3400 hit store, we will probably pay 300 plus dollar for it for 1.5 times the performance. X86-64 is there for the people whoever needs 64 bit performance. If u still use 32 bit application it would be very ideal to transit to clawhammer platform due to price/performance. Think about it, you are getting the impossible deal here. You get the best 32 bit performance processor on the market and 64 bit performance for FREE. I doubt many here are willing to pay 600 plus to intel for a 32 bit only under performing processor without any 64 bit ability. - by ratas

dont bring it up(7:34pm EST Sat Jul 13 2002)only people that used that term couldnt tell a floppy drive from their *ss…

The Hurricane(12:05pm EST Sun Jul 14 2002)I run a K6-2 on my system, because it was faster and cheaper than the competing P-2. K6-3 was ment to bridge the gap between K6-2's and Athlon, at least for people who wanted something more powerful than K6-2 but wanted something less expensive than Athlon. - by Warplex

August 9, 1999 (12:28pm EST Sun Jul 14 2002)The Day amd became serious That was the day the Athlon or K7 was released February 23, 1999 That was the day the K6-3 was paper released The K6-3 didnt bridge nay gap because by the time august rolled around it was already on and off retail shelves (if you count being available on compaq built for you for a week on retail shelves) And yes The K6-2 in itself was a very good and inexpensive product. Which is probably why AMD used the same engine and just dropped 256k of level 2 cache on it and called it k6-3 this was the first time amd had put level 2 cahce on a chip and the performance boost in 99% of apps was almost nill. The only place it made a real difference was in office apps where it even beat down the mighty ( and launched the same day) Pentium III Katmai.PS anyone who wants to know anything about the K6-3 from its release date can go here. - by The-Hurricane

The real article(9:07pm EST Sun Jul 14 2002)I read the Inquirer article. The first and second hand facts I have in hand contradict virtually all the speculation contained within.

Here's the real story:

Intel releases a northwood celeron that pounds AMD's flagship into the ground at a low cost, while the Intel P4 flagship sells at a premium. The wheels finally fall off over at AMD. Film at 11.

Nobody gives a darn about 32/64 bit transitions on the same platform because 97% of the 64 bit market is in workstations and servers, who will buy an optimized 64 bit platform from the start.

But nice try to spin the tail end of AMD's life into a positive, about what can be expected of an AMD fanboy.

Lets see…IF it ships on time (it wont), IF its as good as the fanboys think (it wont be), and even if it is, it'll trail prescott by about 700MHz performance wise. Once again too little, too late. Great use of IF's, factless speculation and the old fanboy spirit though.

Why doesnt everyone just go read the inquirer, since it seems all we're getting here is copies of inaccurate speculative articles from there with some fact-free analysis tacked on?- by Emeril

K Chill the F*** out(12:06am EST Mon Jul 15 2002)OK Emeril you need to chill I don't know if you are an intel fanboy a mac fanboy a c3 fanboy or hell a a Cyrix fanboy but where as I may be speculative and a bit pessimistic about this chip an almost sure it will be delayed you are down right a armageddon prophet for them! Chill AMD will not go away any time soon! Even if they were (not to say they will or are even thinking about it or should) to stop makin chips they would still have Flash memory. So you need to chill and calm down and for god sakes stop callin people fanboys when it is obvious you are one. I used to be a fanboy now i am a objective consumer and reselles i call it as i see it. If intel screws up again (and they will) i will say it if amd screws up again (and they will) i will say it same with most people on here.Rob and Rick really know what they are talking about and for the most part Nataku and Warplex do too. Calm yourself and stop making accusations unless you have points to go with them and facts to back them up - by The-Hurricane

K6-3 has been released 4 years ago…(2:52am EST Mon Jul 15 2002)How time goes fast! - by Askheart

Warplex(2:59am EST Mon Jul 15 2002)“I run a K6-2 on my system, because it was faster and cheaper than the competing P-2″

The k6-2 was cheaper not faster. - by CJ

The-Hurricane(3:26am EST Mon Jul 15 2002)“AMDís K6-3 falls back quite considerably and is under NT slightly slower than an Intel P6-processor at the same clock speed”

“Floating point calculations have never been a friend of the K6 or K6-2, when using them for a comparison with Intel CPUs”

“Well, there isnít much of a difference between with or without the on-die L2-cache. 3DstudioMax is one of the programs that you donít really want to run on a K6-2 or K6-3, unless youíve got quite a lot of time to waste”

“AMDís K6-3 is now the fastest PC-processor for in business applications under Windows98, but as soon as Intel releases the Pentium III 550 the crown will go back to Intel. I have to say that I am a bit disappointed by the K6-3, since it only really shines when running integer operations”

These are from Toms Hardware - by CJ

CJ (8:43am EST Mon Jul 15 2002)I know this I have read all of these before these are from the same article I left the link too. - by The-Hurricane

The-Hurricane(11:16am EST Mon Jul 15 2002)I know that, I was just using it to show how much of a piece of crap the k6-3 was (and still is). - by CJ

CJ(11:24am EST Mon Jul 15 2002)Cool - by The-Hurricane

zsubnot(11:25am EST Mon Jul 15 2002)Ok, the k6, k6-2, k6-3 all sucked and I think the k5 was late or something. The only really good chip from AMD is the K7. Hopefully Hammer is as good as the K7 was ( and still is). - by CJ

By the way, how is it that sites like the inquirer and geek.com float these completely speculative articles with no established first or even second hand knowledge/facts, those are swallowed hook, line, sinker, the rod, the fisherman, the boat, etc…but then someone with first and second hand knowledge pokes a hole in it…

…then everyone cries for facts from them? What exactly from a historical perspective have these writers done that creates any solid credibility other than they're saying what you want to hear? I've seen them write that xyz would ship in qx and it didnt, that product xyz would include features a, b and c and it didnt. I'm not knocking them, they're speculating…but i'd like it better if they'd simply say so and stop pretending they actually have information.

The real sizzler lately is these guys all supporting each other…80% of what rick writes about is based on an article from some other fanboy web site, whose article was based on information some other guy wrote. Wheres the damn source? Of course its nice when people think you're a fanboy to say “well, its this other guys thoughts and i'm just pointing out and commenting on what he said”. Yeh right.

Come on Mike Mcgee, rick…tell us you talked to one intel employee that actually confirmed support for your supposition. Not some guy who heard from someone who talked to somebody who swears an intel employee gave them some information in a back parking lot.

The latter of which is patently ludicrous in the first place…I mean, what guy making six figures over at Intel is going to jeopardize his job by passing benchmark or product information to a 3rd party with no measurable gain in it for anyone?

Appearantly the video drivers that THG handled with didn't use a K6-3 feature called “Write Combining”. Some Anandtech's benchmark scores were pretty up compared to Tom's.

Thus Tom's comments came from test results under which leaked drives did dictate performance downwards. - by Askheart

Emeril(7:35pm EST Mon Jul 15 2002)“Come on Mike Mcgee, rick…tell us you talked to one intel employee that actually confirmed support for your supposition. Not some guy who heard from someone who talked to somebody who swears an intel employee gave them some information in a back parking lot.”

Hahaha.

Make your choice, Emeril:

- Some reporter from an independent site not only creates and disseminates FUD and bias towards a billionaire huge corporate which was made of dozens of thousands of employees but the reporter also omits information.

- A billionaire huge corporate which was made of dozens of thousands of employees, omits information about their disseminated FUD and bias toward some reporters.

Couple of guys speculate on various vendors stuff. They tilt the speculation against the “big bad awful company” they dont like and in favor of the scrappy little underdog that so far has managed to take a performance lead for about 3 months in a 15 year period.

After getting whacked in the shins by people with actual facts contradictory to their speculation, they scream “you have no facts! No facts! No facts!”. Nice diversionary tactic, but short lived.

Then to assure the readership that they arent 'fanboys', they take turns quoting each others stories so they can say “hey, it wasnt ME saying those things, I was just referring to a story where another fanboy said that!”. Again, nice diversionary tactic but short lived.

Now what I like to do is take some nice fresh facts, slice them thick, lay them out on a platter, garnish them with some reality, throw in a little 'essence' BAM! and serve it up. Not some crap thats been ladled from pot to pot and nobody knows where it came from or whats in it really, but someone wants to declare what it is and what it isnt based on ???- by Emeril

Emeril (11:35pm EST Mon Jul 15 2002)What makes me look like a fanboy for AMD is it the 1.7ghz p4 I run in my desktop or is it the 700 mhz p!!! I run in my laptop?I run these for the same reason Rick runs his 1.4ghz athlon It was the best deal at the time.I got this chip and a i850gb for a very good price. Did you even read my post ? your an intel fanboy and your just as bad as an amd fanboy just you have about 5.4 billion more dollars to go along with your backing than the amd boys.I am neither so read my posts and tell me where i make my fanboy comments! - by The-Hurricane